For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have

abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even
that which he hath.
Holy
25:29

Bible,

Matthew

Issue No. 3: Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the

claim of overdue rental fees, damages, attorneys fees
and litigation expenses.
In the case at bar, defendant failed to pay rental arrearages
to plaintiff; and the Contract of Lease expired without any request
from defendant for a renegotiation prior to its expiration. Failure
to pay timely rentals is an event of default under the Contract of
Lease, entitling the lessor to terminate the lease. Moreover, the
failure of defendant to pay timely rentals entitles the lessor to
judicially eject it under the provisions of the Civil Code.
The records likewise show that the lease had already expired
on ____________The pertinent provision of the Contract of Lease
reads:
If the rental herein stipulated, or any part thereof, at any time
shall be unpaid, or if the tenant shall at any time fail or neglect to
perform or comply with any of the covenants, conditions,
agreements or restrictions stipulated, then and in any of such
above cases, this Lease of Contract shall become automatically
terminated and cancelled and the said premises shall be vacated
peacefully by the LESSEE for the LESSOR to hold and enjoy
henceforth as if these presents have not been made.
In the case of Optima Realty Corporation vs. Hertz Phil.
Exclusive cars, INC. G.R. No. 183035, the court held, that as to the
award of monthly compensation, Hertz should pay adequate
compensation to Optima, since the former continued to occupy
the leased premises even after the expiration of the lease
contract. As the lease price during the effectivity of the lease

contract was P54,200 per month, we find it to be a reasonable

award. Finally, we uphold the award of attorney's fees in the
amount of P30,000 and judicial costs in the light of Hertz's
unjustifiable and unlawful retention of the leased premises, thus
forcing Optima to file the instant case in order to protect its rights
and interest.
In Santos vs. National Statistics Office G.R. No. 171129, the
court ruled, that there is unjust enrichment when a person
unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person
retains money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Article 22 of the
Civil Code provides that every person who through an act of
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes
into possession of something at the expense of the latter without
just or legal ground, shall return the same to him."
Thus, in Benitez v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held
that, Damages are recoverable in ejectment cases under Section
17, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. These damages arise
from the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not
the damages which private respondents may have suffered but
which have no direct relation to their loss of material possession.
Damages in the
context of Section 17, Rule 70 is limited to "rent" or "fair market
value" for the use and occupation of the property.
Section 17, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court states, If
after trial court finds that the allegations of the complaint are
true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the
restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent
or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
premises, attorney's fees and costs. If a counterclaim is
established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in
arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires.
In Antioqua Development Corporation vs. Rabacal GR. No.
148843, the court sustained the RTC's grant of attorney's fees in

favor of petitioners who were constrained to litigate to protect

their interest due to the unwarranted refusal of the defendants to
vacate and surrender possession of the premises in question.
There is no doubt whatsoever that it is within the MTC's
competence and jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs in
an ejectment case in accordance with Section 17, Rule 70 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Also the 2006 case of Dumo v. Espinas GR. No. 14196,
reiterates the long-established rule that the only form of damages
that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is the fair
rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the property. In MTC, the only damage that can be
recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation
for the use and occupation of the property. Considering that the
only issue raised in unlawful detainer is that of rightful
possession, damages which could be recovered are those which
the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those
caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and
not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no
direct relation to his loss of material possession.
There is no question that a court may, whenever it deems
just and equitable, allow the recovery by the prevailing party of
attorneys fees. In determining the reasonableness of such fees,
the case of Dela Rosa vs. Roldan GR. No. 133882, has provided
various criteria which, for convenient guidance, thusly: a) the
quantity and character of the services rendered; b) the labor, time
and trouble involved; c) the nature and importance of the
litigation; d) the amount of money or the value of the property
affected by the controversy; e) the novelty and difficulty of
questions involved; f) the responsibility imposed on counsel; g)
the skill and experience called for in the performance of the
service; h) the professional character and social standing of the
lawyer; i) the customary charges of the bar for similar services; j)
the character of employment, whether casual or for established
client; k) whether the fee is absolute or contingent (it being the
rule that an attorney may properly charge a higher fee when it is
contingent than when it is absolute; and l) the results secured.

In view thereof, the awarding of attorneys fees would be

justified. That is, in addition to the provisions of Article 2208 of
the New Civil Code which reads In the absence of stipulation,
attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, except: (2) When the defendants act
or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; considering
that defendant refused to vacate the subject premises despite
demands by plaintiff.

As to the allegation of tolerance since demand to vacate was

served days after:
The contention of defendant that there has been occupation by
tolerance is without merit.
Where the possession of defendant is by tolerance on the part
of the plaintiff, or his predecessor, the possession or detainer
becomes illegal from the time that there is a demand to vacate
(Amis vs. Aragon, L-4684, April 28, 1951).